Religion is still extremely powerful and, in all probability, will grow even more powerful in the future. Almost every religion demands children and children are a source of power for a religion or any group. The Catholic Church demands sex without any artificial birth control. The Catholic Church demands that its followers have sex without a condom, even if one of the married partners has AIDS. And the rhythm method demanded by the Catholic Church is not birth control. There is a very good reason why the rhythm method is called “Vatican Roulette”—it is more than a joke, it is a disaster for all of humanity. And to be very blunt, the Catholic Church deliberately provides incorrect and misleading information to its followers regarding birth control. Cardinal Alfonso L. Trujillo, (now deceased) the former head of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for the Family advised people in countries stricken by AIDS not to use condoms, despite a widespread scientific consensus that condoms are impermeable to the HIV virus. He stated “The spermatozoon can easily pass through the “net” that is formed by the condom.” The Church has even told its followers that children have been born with IUDs stuck in their heads. Many Protestant denominations say life begins at fertilization and, therefore, oppose abortion. If life begins at fertilization and if upon fertilization God gives the fertilized egg a soul, God is the greatest murderer who ever existed---many fertilized eggs do not attach to the womb and are flushed out when the woman menstruates. With the thinking of religion that is set forth above, everyone who believes that humanity will voluntarily reduce population growth to zero or make it negative before billions die due to the inability of the earth to provide the resources humanity needs to survive are just plain wrong and condemning billions to horrible deaths.

The President of The American Life League stated—“the mind set that invites a couple to use contraception is an anti-child mind-set. We oppose all forms of contraception.” At a conference sponsored by the Pro-Life Action League the speakers assailed contraception on the grounds that it devalues children, harms relationships between men and women, promotes sexual promiscuity, and leads to falling birth rates, among social ills. The President of that organization told the Chicago Tribune that contraception is more the root cause of abortion than anything else. The beliefs of the people who belong to those organizations make it absolutely clear that voluntary population stabilization will never be achieved prior to the destruction of humanity. The Catholic Church and most Protestant denominations oppose abortion and population growth cannot and will not be reduced to zero without abortion. The best evidence indicates that 46% of American women had one or more unplanned pregnancies and 40% of American women had one or more abortions. We can debate the accuracy of those numbers. However, there isn’t any doubt that unplanned pregnancies and abortions are relatively common in the US and would be an important consideration in any attempt to control population growth. While I have not seen similar statistics for the rest of the world, there isn’t any reason to believe the numbers are lower. In all probability, the rate of unplanned pregnancies is higher in the rest of the world. Since starting to write this book, I read one statistic that there are about 46 million abortions each year for all of humanity. If that number is correct and if all abortions were stopped by religious fanatics, the human population would increase dramatically

Orthodox Jews and members of the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints (Fundamentalist Mormons) have children beyond number. Due to their exploding population growth, Moslems have grown to the largest religion in the world, surpassing the number of Catholics on the planet. While many people do not follow the dictates of their religion in the area of birth control, enough follow the dictates of their religion to prevent the stabilization of population at any number and stabilization is not what is required, if humanity wants to survive. What is required for humanity to survive is for population growth to become negative and for the population of humanity to be substantially reduced. In order for population growth to reach zero or become negative on a voluntary basis, religion will have to be drastically modified to permit the use of artificial birth control and abortion. Since there isn’t sufficient factual evidence to support the position that both the Catholic Church will change its position on birth control and abortion and the other religions will change their positions on abortion in time to prevent the destruction of our species, the demographers who predict stabilization of world wide population at 8 billion or less by 2100 are incorrect in their predictions.

A recent analysis has indicated that the declines in fertility have stalled in a number of sub-Saharan countries. This fact, assuming it is a fact, does not bode well for those who have taken the position that voluntary action of all of humanity will reduce population growth to zero. The US Government under the Bush Administration has refused to fund any program in any part of the world that even discusses abortion with the people it serves. Population growth will not be reduced to zero or become negative on a world wide basis without abortion and the refusal of the US Government under the Bush Administration to fund any program which discusses abortion must lead to the conclusion that population will not stabilize at eight billion or below at any time in the future. For the past few years Congress annually appropriated $34 million to the United Nations Population Fund. However, in response to the pressure bought by the religious fanatics who are opposed to abortion, the money was never given to that organization by the Bush administration. Results of the action by the Bush administration are-- according to those who are concerned about the future and health of humankind-- 2 million unintended pregnancies, about 800,000 abortions, 4,700 maternal deaths and 77,000 infant and child deaths. The religious fanatics do not care about humanity and would rather see all of humanity destroyed because of their belief about abortion. Since the first draft of this paragraph was put to paper, the Bush Administration was replaced by the Obama Administration and that administration has indicated that it will take a significantly different position form the Bush Administration on birth control and abortion. However, that change does not insure that in the future a Republican Administration will not reinstate the actions of the Bush Administration. Voluntary population control will never reduce population growth to zero or make it negative without the total support of the USA and that support cannot be guaranteed.

Channel Four News: Population Explosion is the cause of Third World Poverty

Professor Joel Cohen, of Rockefeller and Columbia Universities, wrote on Page 143 of his book (published in 1995) “How Many People Can the Earth Support?”—“If the eventual total fertility rate were 1.96 children (one-tenth of a child less than replacement level), the population size would rise from 5.3 billion in 1990 to 7.8 billion in 2050, then decline, dropping to 5.6 billion by 2150 and continuing steadily downward. If the eventual total fertility rate were 2.17 children (one-tenth of a child larger than replacement level), then population would rise to 20.8 billion ( the 20.8 billion is based on the starting number of 5.3 billion in 1990) by 2150 and continue upward. The United Nations commented and I (Joel Cohen) agree; ‘Perhaps the major conclusion is … there is a wide range of uncertainty regarding the future size of the world population…. At the level of the individual couple, if it is assumed reasonable that their behavior will result in exactly 2.06 children on average (replacement level), it is probably just as reasonable to assume that the average might be 1.96 or 2.17 children’”.

Let us examine the above quotation from Professor Cohen’s book. First, he was using 1990 population figures. Since 1990 the human population has grown from 5.3 billion to over 6.7 billion today. More importantly, the total fertility rate has not decreased to either 1.96 or 2.17. Rather, according the best estimate of the UN the total fertility rate is about 2.50 for all of humanity. Both the UN and Professor Cohen make it clear that predicting the future fertility rate cannot be done with 100% accuracy. Therefore, there is a risk to any population prediction and humanity cannot afford to bet on the achievement of zero population growth before the tipping point is reached that will result in the destruction of humankind.

In order for population growth rate to be reduced to zero the total fertility rate would have to be reduced from the current 2.50 to 2.06, the replacement level, and it is more than highly unlikely that such a reduction could be voluntarily achieved prior to the destruction of humanity. In fact, it is highly unlikely that the total fertility rate will ever be voluntarily reduced to 2.06, the replacement level. The total fertility rate represents the number of children to which the average woman gives birth. That means that the average woman currently gives birth to 2.50 children, according to the US Census Bureau’s most current statistics. However, you must not confuse the reduction of the total fertility rate to 2.06, the replacement value, with a stabilization of the population. There is something called “demographic momentum”. Even if the total fertility rate were reduced to replacement level (2.06), population would continue to increase for about 70 years and then, and only then, would it stabilize at a level 50% greater than the level when the replacement level of total fertility was achieved. For example, if the replacement level was reached in 2050 and if the population at that time was 9.5 billion, the US Census Bureau estimate, then population would continue to grow and not stabilize until 2120 at about 14.3 billion. The question would then become—how long could the earth’s resources support that level of population at the then level of per capita usage of the earth’s resources?

The most important point to be obtained from Cohen’s book is that if the total fertility rate was reduced to just one-tenth of a child greater than replacement level (2.17) starting today the human population would far exceed 20.8 billion in 2150. It is highly unlikely that humanity will ever achieve a population close to 20.8 billion as the earth will not to be able to provide the resources necessary even to get close to that level. Humanity cannot afford that gamble and must take all steps necessary to prevent the continued growth of population.

Lester Brown of the Earth Policy Institute wrote— “The Plan B (his plan for the future) goal of stabilizing population is set a 8 billion or lower simply because I (Lester Brown) do not think world population will ever reach the 9.2 billion projected by the UN demographers for 2050. The vast majority of the 2.4 billion people projected to be added by 2050 will be born in developing countries---countries where the land and water resource base is deteriorating and hunger spreading. Many support systems in these countries are already in decline, and some are collapsing. The question is not whether population growth will come to a halt before reaching 9.2 billion but whether it will do so because the world shifts quickly to smaller families or because it fails to do so—and population growth is checked by rising mortality”

The UN published a table in 2007 which stated that only about 56% of women world- wide aged 15-49 or in a union used modern contraception. About another 7% used traditional methods—the rhythm method, withdrawal or other traditional methods. In reality these methods are almost useless and must not be considered birth control. The other 37% used nothing. In order for the total fertility rate to be reduced to replacement level almost 100% of women/couples will have to use modern means of contraception—about a doubling of the usage of modern contraception. There is not one single drop of evidence which would support the proposition that by 2050 there will be almost a doubling of modern contraceptive use---going from the present 56% to almost 100%.

To be very blunt, modern contraceptive use will not even approach 100% because many men are too “macho” to use a condom and would force their wives or girl friends to have sex without a condom or any other type of artificial birth control that they believe would interfere with their sexual pleasure. Also it would require the Catholic Church to change its position on the use of artificial birth control, since a sufficient number of Catholics still follow the dictates of the church regarding contraception to affect the overall population growth of humanity. The Catholic Church cannot change its position on artificial birth control. Why? If the Church were to admit its position on birth control was incorrect, it would then have to admit that all the other positions of the Church could be incorrect and could be subject to attack. In addition to a dramatic change by the Catholic Church, every other religion and culture would have to change such that the usage of modern contraception would not only be permitted, but deemed something that is necessary for the survival of humanity.

The demographers who predict voluntary population stabilization underestimate the hatefulness, arrogance, religious fanaticism and selfishness of most of humanity. Mr. Justice Scalia, of the US Supreme Court, has nine children and Bobby Kennedy, who is involved in environmental causes, has five children. The Republican nominee for President of the USA in 2008, John McCain, has at least four biological children and his choice for Vice-President, Sarah Palin, has five biological children. Nothing shows the arrogance of religious fanatics more than Palin not aborting her fifth child which she knew to be a Down syndrome child. Nothing shows the failure to understand the harm the exploding population is doing to humanity than McCain agreeing with the religious right that life begins when the egg is fertilized by the sperm. Such a belief by The President of the USA would eliminate almost every method of birth control which depends on hormones and drive population growth to new heights. If these supposedly intelligent individuals do not understand the harm they are doing to humanity, I doubt that the rest of our species will voluntarily reduce population growth to zero or make it negative prior to a major catastrophe. No, that is not correct. I can state with almost absolute certainty that humanity will not voluntarily reduce population growth to zero or make it negative prior to the horrible destruction of billions of human beings.

Since population growth must stop and will stop and no power on earth or in the heavens can change that fact because the earth is finite, humanity has two and only two choices. Reduce population growth to zero before birth by artificial birth control and abortion or suffer the reduction of population by war with weapons of mass destruction and/or ethnic cleansing and/or concentration camps and/or other horrors beyond the imagination after birth. Since even the most effective artificial birth control methods sometimes fail, population growth cannot and will not be reduced to zero without the availability of abortion to every human being on the face of the earth. The rhythm method demanded by the Pope and the Catholic Church is not birth control. If population growth is not stopped by artificial birth control and abortion, the population of humankind will continue to increase and at some point in time , in the very, near future, there will be resource wars over diminished resources—resources per capita will shrink such that war is inevitable. Those that claim to be pro-life because they oppose artificial birth control and/or abortion are, in reality, pro-death. Those that claim to be pro-life will cause the death of billions of living, breathing human beings. Unless the Pope, every cleric of every religion, and the rest of humanity understand that fact and acts upon that fact humanity is doomed.

Let us do a little math together and see how population would grow if each of Mr. Justice Scalia’s nine children had nine children and this continued just for a few generations: ( I have chosen Mr. Justice Scalia as an example because he is supposed to have a modicum of intelligence)

If we make the reasonable assumption that each generation averages 35 years, then in less than 400 years (11 generations at 35 years per generation=385 years) the progeny of Mr. Justice Scalia will exceed 31 billion people, about five times greater than the present population of the entire world. And the 31 billion are only the 11th generation. At the time of the 11th generation many of his progeny from the 9th and 10th generations will be alive. Therefore, the burden placed on the earth by Mr. Justice Scalia and his progeny would probably exceed 35 billion people. When asked on a TV program about his nine children, he shrugged and said he was Catholic, as if he had no control over his procreative abilities. If a US Supreme Court Justice turns over control of his body and turns over control of his wife’s body and turns over control of the number of his children to religious fanaticism, there isn’t any hope that humanity will voluntarily reduce population growth to zero in time to prevent the destruction of our species. If in order to survive our species must reduce population below the current 6.7 billion, it is an absolute certainty that will never voluntarily occur.

I will not do the math for you. However, if Mr. Justice Scalia’s progeny continued at the same rate of reproduction for just 4,000 years their number would exceed the number of atoms, repeat the number of atoms, in the entire observable universe. And 4,000 years is less than the time from the construction of the Egyptian pyramids until today.

Mr. Justice Scalia and his children have another very important lesson for all of humanity. If everyone on the planet, repeat everyone on the planet, except Mr. Justice Scalia and his progeny, agreed to voluntarily reduce population growth to zero the entire effort would be futile because in just 11 generations his progeny would exceed 31 billion people negating everything the rest of humanity did to reduce population growth to zero. Voluntarily reducing population growth to zero requires the agreement of every single human being on the face of the earth and that will not happen.

Mr. Justice Scalia is not the only religious fanatic on the face of the earth. If there were only an additional 1,000 other religious fanatics and their progeny who acted in the same manner as Mr. Justice Scalia and his progeny their number in less than 400 years would exceed 31 trillion. God Almighty himself could not provide enough food FOR that number of human beings.

A measure was recently placed on the November 2008 ballot in the State of Colorado declaring that a fertilized egg was a person, a human being, entitled to all the rights of a human being. This measure would eliminate many birth control options---many of the birth control options work by not permitting the fertilized egg to attach itself to the wall of the uterus. Why was such a measure placed on the ballot? The answer-because religious fanatics want to impose their ridiculous religious concepts on all of humanity and these religious concepts will destroy all of humanity. More importantly, it shows why voluntary birth control for all of humanity will never work, it shows that population growth will never voluntarily be reduced to zero or made negative. The religious fanatics would rather destroy all of humanity than give up their ideas which have no basis in fact or in morality. A shocking statistic---the best estimate is that 1.4 million pregnancies happen each year in the Philippines and about 500,000 of these are terminated by an abortion.

Anyone who advocates education and raising the status of women as the method of achieving voluntary birth control is making a number of errors:

To the best of my knowledge, those that advocate education and the raising the status of women do not claim that such action will convert positive population growth to negative population growth. At best they claim that such action will sometime in the future convert positive population growth to zero growth. Therefore, it is impliedly a basic premise of those who advocate education and status raising that the earth can support, as a minimum the present population of 6.7 billion. In effect, those that are advocating education and status raising are gambling the survival of humanity on the unsupported belief that the planet can support at least 6.7 billion human beings at the current or any increased per capita usage of resources

Those that advocate education and status raising must also believe that once population growth is reduced to zero, it will remain at zero for as long as humanity inhabits the earth. However, there isn’t, to the best of my knowledge, any factual evidence that zero population growth will remain zero forever. If population growth did not remain at zero, all humanity would be doing is delaying its destruction which would occur upon zero growth changing to a positive number. In effect, they are gambling the survival of humanity on the unsupported belief that population growth for all of humanity will remain at zero for as long as humanity inhabits the earth.

Under the best of circumstances it will take many years (no one really can predict the number of years) to educate all, or a substantial portion of, women on this planet and raise their status to a level such that they desire no more than the replacement number of children and it will take an additional number of years before the women has the guts to talk to their husbands about their desires. Then it will take additional years for the husbands (boy friends) accede to the desires of the women. After that long period of time, it will take many more years before the reduction in births affects the demographics of our population.

Even if the replacement number of children were achieved by 2050 that would not be the end of the story; population would increase substantially subsequent to 2050 for many reasons:

The population would be skewed in 2050 in favor of young people who had not reached the age of reproduction or just had reached the age of reproduction. That fact would cause population to increase for a period of about 70 years until it stabilized;

The average per capita usage of resources would almost certainly increase subsequent to 2050 putting a substantial burden on the ability of the earth to support humanity;

Hopefully the life span of the average human would continue to increase after 2050 also putting an additional strain on the ability of the earth to support humanity;

During the expanded life span of the average human, additional humans would be born increasing the population which also would put an additional burden on the earth’s ability to support humanity.

To put it in simple understandable terms—even if each woman achieved the replacement level starting in 2050, that fact would lead to the short term destruction of humanity—the earth could not support the increased population combined with the increase in the usage of resources for any reasonable length of time.

There isn’t any evidence that education, raising the status of women, time, etc., will overcome the demands of religion or culture in time to prevent the destruction of humanity.

One may be justified in questioning any statement that the earth will be unable to provide the necessary resources for humanity to survive on this planet for a reason length of time. One can challenge my claim to predict the future with any degree of accuracy: no one can predict the future with any degree of accuracy. But I will offer a counter-challenge--- just read the newspaper every day; just listen to the media every day; just examine the problems facing humanity set forth in this book; and just consider any additional problems you know and ask yourself—are you ready to bet the survival of your children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren that the author is wrong?

The Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN (FAO) has issued a sobering forecast on world food production. If the global population reached 9.1 billion by 2050, the FAO has projected that world food production would need to rise by 70% and food production in the developing world would need to double. Of course, unless population decreased subsequent to 2050 the amount of food produced annually would have to forever remain at those increased levels. While no one can predict the future with total certainty, it is almost certain that those levels of food production could not be achieved, let alone maintained forever. The forecast of the FAO did not take into account the possibility that population would be greater than 9.1 billion in 2050 or that population would continue to grow subsequent to 2050

In order not to have resource wars with massive death and destruction, not only will world wide population growth have to immediately be reduced to zero or made negative on the average over the entire world, but population growth will have to be reduced to zero or made negative in many areas of the world independent of the world wide average.. Former President Carter, in his recent book, wrote that in 1948 Gaza had 90,000 Arabs; in 1967 270,000 Arabs; and in 2006 the number of Arabs reached 1.4 million. He also wrote that the Arab population of Gaza was growing at the compound rate of 4.7% per year in 2006. At that rate of growth the doubling time is about 15 years. If his numbers are correct and if that rate of growth continues for just 60 years, the Arab population of Gaza will reach 22.4 million (1.4 x2x2x2x 2=22.4). While no one can accurately predict the consequences of such a population in such a small area with so few resources, it would be extremely unwise to rule out a war between the Arabs and Israel over resources, including water, resulting in the use of weapons of mass destruction. There are many other situations—situations in which opposing religious, ethnic or other groups exist in close proximity to each other with limited resources for which they compete. A simple question for you to consider---if the growth of the Arab population were to continue at the compound rate of 4.7% for just 60 years and reach 22.4 million, what would be the chance of a war with weapons of mass destruction happening before 2068 between the Arabs and Israelis? Are you willing to bet the lives of your children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren on the answer? No! By not taking action, by your failure to demand that population growth become negative today, you are betting the lives of your children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

Those opposed to imposed or coercive population control must logically take the position the human population can increase forever, can become infinitely large, or that humanity will voluntarily reduce population growth to zero or make it negative prior to reaching the tipping point which will result in the destruction of humankind. If those opposed to coercive population control are unable to present a convincing case, based on facts and logic and not based on hopes and desires, that humanity will voluntarily reduce population growth to zero or make it negative prior to the destruction of civilization, they then must agree that the only way to save humankind from destruction is by imposed or coercive population control. To gamble the survival of all and I mean all of humanity on voluntary population control for as long as humanity exists on the planet is a very irrational bet---if the bet is lost all of humanity is destroyed. Even if there is only a one or two percent chance that humanity will not achieve a stable population by voluntary birth control in time to prevent one or more major catastrophes it still is a foolish bet and foolish gamble—if the gamble is lost all or almost all of humankind will be destroyed. Anyone who is opposed to what is written in this book and any reviewer who disagrees with what is written herein has an obligation to show by facts and logic (and not hopes and desires) that the human population can become infinitely large or that the chance of voluntary population control succeeding is greater than 98 or 99%

More than a few experts who have studied the relationship between the population of humankind and the resources which the earth can provide on an annual basis have come to the conclusion that the earth cannot support more than one or two billion people for any reasonable period of time at a reasonable standard of living. Some experts have even put the figure at 500 million or below. Of course, no one knows if those experts are or will be correct. However, a few simple questions must be asked and answered—what action should humanity take today if there is even a !0% chance that the experts are correct? If humanity does nothing and the experts are correct, then what happens? Can anyone say with absolute certainty that the experts are wrong and that the earth can support the current 6.7 billion who inhabit it or the increased number of humans predicted for the year 2050 based on the problems presently facing humankind and based upon the increased per capita usage of resources? Almost every major problem facing humankind in the 21st century can be solved or greatly reduced if population were substantially reduced.

What action must humanity take today if in order for humanity to survive for a limited period of time (for argument, say 5,000 years—dinosaurs ruled the earth for about 160 million years) at an average standard of living that does not cause resource wars,? Answer-- the population of the world has to be reduced below the current 6.7 billion? First, can a rational argument be made that this question is nonsense and never will have to be asked and answered? If this question should be answered, then this is the most important question facing the human species. The answer is very simple---the only course of conduct which will prevent the destruction of humanity is to immediately reduce population by coercive population controls. Let us examine the problem differently—since the earth is finite, population growth must stop at some point in time. What is better for humanity---population growth to stop at eight or more billion or to stop at less than one billion? What increases the chances of long term human survival---using the resources of the earth to support eight or more billion or using the resources of the earth to support less than one billion? It is a very simple question—what course of conduct gives humanity the best chance of surviving?

There are three ways population growth can be reduced to zero or made negative—a) by war, starvation, disease, ethnic cleansing and other horrors beyond the imaginations of almost every reader of this book; b) by the voluntary action of all of humanity for an extended period of time—for the period of time humanity will remain on the earth; and c) by being imposed by all of society or by some group which would have the power to enforce whatever rules and regulations are necessary to reduce population and economic growth to zero or to make both negative. Categories (b) and (c) are sub-categories of non-violence or sub-categories of the intelligence of humankind. Since category (a) (war, starvation, etc.) would result in the destruction of civilization as we know it, it is not a viable option. For the reasons set forth herein, I do not believe that humankind will voluntarily reduce population and economic growth to zero or make both of them negative prior the deaths of billions of human beings and the destruction of society as we know it. If I am correct, then the only way to reduce population and economic growth to zero or make it negative such that humanity will survive is by the action of all of society or a group which will control population by effective sanctions against those that reproduce against the established rules.

Evolution is a fact and has been applicable to every species and sub-species that ever existed on the earth. Only religious ideologues or fanatics dispute the existence and applicability of evolution to all living things, large and small, plant and animal. While no one knows for sure when life began on the earth, the best estimate is that life began about 3.6-4.0 billion years ago. While no one knows the number of species and sub-species that have existed since life started on the earth, it was at least hundreds of millions and probably in the billions. For the purpose of this book I will use one billion. Again, no one knows the average number of generations that each species existed on the earth. For example—if a species lasted for 100,000 years (the time calculated from the initial evolution of the species or sub-species until the time the last member of the species or sub-species dies) and the average length of a generation was six months, then there would be two generations per year for 100,000 years for a total of 200,000 generations. For the vast portion of time that life existed on the earth only single cell organisms existed with very short generational times. In fact, substantial portions of the species that exist today are single cell creatures and substantial portions are very small creatures with very short generational times. I wish to emphasize that the numbers used herein are guesstimates and are only intended to provide the reader with a feel for the average number of generations each species has existed on the earth since life began. For the purpose of this book I will assume that the average species or sub-species existed for 10,000, 000 years and had a generational time of ten days---36.5 generation per year. Based on those assumptions the average species existed for 365 million generations. Multiplying the two numbers (one billion species and 365 million generations for the average species) gives the number of species generations that have existed on the earth since life began---365,000,000,000,000,000.

What has all this math got to do with the future survival of humankind? I will explain. In everyone of those species generations without a single exemption when a species generation reached the maximum number of individuals that could be supported by the niche occupied by that species generation, the population of that species generation was divided into two groups---those that survived to reproduce and those that did not survive to reproduce. For example—if a niche could support 80 individuals of a certain species at a particular time (a species generation) and if 200 young were born, only 80 of the young would survive to reproduce and the other 120 would die off before reproducing—that is all the niche could support.

While our species is endowed with exceptional intelligence, our intellectual stature will not earn us an exemption from the same division that other species are subject to. Humanity, too, will be divided into two groups—those that can reproduce and those that cannot reproduce-- once humanity reaches the maximum number of human beings that can be supported by the resources provided by the earth and the maximum number will be reached in the very near future, if it has not already been reached. Humanity has one and only one niche—the entire planet. Based on the assumptions set forth above, the odds in favor of a two group solution for humanity are 365,000,000,000,000,000 to one. The law of natural selection/evolution/survival of the fittest/Darwinism demands a two group solution and that law has applied to every living thing in every generation, without a single exception. Humanity cannot afford to gamble that the law of natural selection does not apply to it. Evolution demands every species and sub-species in every generation, once the maximum number of individuals that could be supported by the niche is reached, be divided into two groups—those that reproduce and those that do not survive to reproduce.

Every human being may not like the concept of a two group solution, may not like the concept of the reproducers and the non-reproducers, but all of humankind will have to accept that the concept of a two group division is applicable to our species. The name given to the group that reproduces is unimportant. Now I will try to present the same ideas in a slightly different manner. There are two laws that have applied to every living thing, (plant, virus, bacteria or animal, large or small) since life started on the earth. These two laws have never been violated and never will be violated. These two laws will apply to humanity no matter their morality and no matter the desires of humanity and no matter the intelligence of humanity. No power can stop the application of these two laws to every living thing. First law---every living thing reached a maximum number of individuals alive at every point in time; no species had an infinite number of individuals at any point in time. I challenge anyone to present an argument that the population of humanity could reach infinity at any point in time. Second law—in every generation in which a species reached the maximum number of individuals that could be supported in the niche occupied by the species, the species was divided into two groups—those that survived to reproduce and those that did not survive to reproduce. The only way humankind would be exempt from the second law, if the human population continued to increase, would be for our niche, the entire planet, to support an infinite number of humans and that will not happen.

The concept of dividing humanity into two groups can be considered to be horrible, disgusting, and contrary to every democratic principle. However, unless anyone opposed to the concept of two groups can show that population can continue to increase forever without causing the destruction of humankind, that person must confront the immediate necessity of reducing population growth to zero or more realistically making population growth negative. The only way population growth will be reduced to zero or made negative is to have it imposed. Those that are permitted to reproduce will not be chosen on the basis of race, religion, color, ethnicity, national origin, or anything similar. It is merely a name for those that are permitted to reproduce because they are the ones best equipped to survive in today’s society or will be best equipped to survive in the future. Who they are and how they are determined will be discussed below.

It may indeed be politically incorrect in contemporary society to suggest that humanity is subject to Darwinian Laws. But it is more important to be biologically correct than politically correct. The leaders of humanity must understand that when humanity reaches the maximum number of humans that the planet can support, like it or not, we will be divided into the two groups described herein. The task before our leaders will be to effect that division as painlessly and ethically as circumstances permit before nature does it with impartial ruthlessness. I WANT TO MAKE IT ABSOLUTELY CLEAR THAT ANY ACTION RELATING TO THE TWO GROUP SOLUTION SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN UNTIL THE HUMAN POPULATION HAS BEEN VERY SUBSTATIALLY REDUCED WHICH WILL TAKE MANY YEARS AND UNTIL HUMANITY AGREES ON HOW TO DETERMINE WHO WILL PROCREATE AND WHO WILL NOT PROCREATE.

THE DELUSIONAL EXPECTATIONS OF TECHNOLOGICAL SOLUTIONS

Jeffrey Sachs, Director of Columbia University’s Earth Institute, made the following statement—“We’re living in an era where the technologies that have empowered high living standards and 80-year life expectancies in the rich world are now for almost everybody. What this means is that not only do we have a very large amount of economic activity right now, but we have potential for vast increases in economic activity as well. The world cannot sustain that level of growth without new technologies.” (Emphasis added) I totally disagree with Professor Sachs. Anyone who believes that growth of any type or believes in the possibility of a vast increase in economic activity on the finite earth is wrong. New technologies will only delay the problem that has to be faced—reducing population and economic growth to zero or making them both negative. New technologies cannot increase the amount of resources on the earth, cannot increase the number of atoms on the earth. All new technologies can do is to reduce the amount of resources used per unit of economic output. New technologies cannot give you something for nothing—cannot produce a unit of economic output without the use of any resource. New technologies can permit resources to be recycled, but since no physical process can be 100% efficient, recycling will only delay and not solve the problems facing humanity. Eventually humanity will run out of resources and recycling will not solve that problem. New technologies will permit substitution of one resource for another resource, but the second resource is also finite in amount and humanity will run out of that resource. To put it in plain and simple words—new technologies are a delusion and will not solve the problems facing humanity.

The concept of new technologies is not only a delusion, but is extremely harmful. As humanity develops new technologies, population and the economy of the world continue to grow and grow and grow. In addition, humanity delays facing the ultimate fact that this planet is finite, while hoping for new technologies to solve the problems facing it.

Anyone who hopes that new technologies will benefit humanity has no understanding of the problems facing our species. Professor Sachs used the word “growth.” Since the earth and its resources are finite, growth cannot continue—growth must stop at some point in time. There are three and only three choices when growth must stop—in the past, today, or in the future. Since no one can be sure when humankind will have exceeded the carrying capacity of the earth, humanity cannot run the risk of massive destruction and must stop growth today. Since no one can be 100% sure that humankind has not past the tipping point into an irreversible downward catastrophic spiral or even when such a tipping point will be reached, growth must stop today.

Technology has a massive fatal flaw that its proponents refuse to discuss or consider. Generally technology makes the product cheaper and, therefore, humanity uses more of the product resulting in the same or even a greater usage of resources. For example—if presently an auto uses 1,000 pounds of steel and due to technology the amount of steel was reduced by 50% so that only 500 pounds were used, the price would decrease and humanity would buy two cars instead of one car resulting in the same total usage. In some cases humanity would buy three cars increasing the total usage. The same principle would apply when technology substitutes one resources for another—if limited resource “A’ was used in a product and if due to technology resource “B’ was substituted at a cheaper price, the public would buy more of the product so that eventually resource “B’ would be exhausted. If the price of electricity decreases due to technology, people use more electricity resulting in the usage of more oil and coal. History has shown what is set forth in this paragraph is not just theoretical nonsense, but almost always happens. It is known as Jevons’ Paradox.

Almost every problem faced by humanity today on a world wide scale is in some manner caused by or related to the population explosion of the last 50 years. Perhaps an example will help explain the concept that technological solutions are a delusion. Assume the earth consists of a single acre. Since the one acre is finite and since the earth is finite, they are exactly the same for this example. No debate, discussion, sophistry or anything else can change the fact that for the purpose of this example they are exactly the same---they both are finite and any limitation which applies to the one acre also applies to the earth. Can the one acre grow one billion bushels of grain? Clearly the answer is no. If the answer were yes, the question would become could the one acre grow 100 billion bushels of grain? Clearly the amount of grain that could be grown on the one acre is limited no matter the technology applied. Nothing humanity can do can increase the amount of grain produced by that one acre above a certain point. Since the earth and the one acre are the same for the purpose of the example, it becomes clear that the resources that can be provided by the earth are limited no matter the technology applied and no matter how efficiently the resources are used.

Can the one acre support one billion human beings? One hundred billion human beings? Since the answer to those two questions is clearly and unequivocally no, it is clear that the population of humanity on the earth cannot continue to grow forever no matter how efficiently humankind uses the resources the earth can provide and no matter the new technologies which humankind develops and no matter how much of the earth’s resources humankind is able to recycle.

Another example may be helpful for you to understand the relationship between new technologies and/or environmentalism (efficient use of resources) and the expanding human population. Assume that it takes 100 units of the earth’s resources to produce one unit of economic output per capita and assume further that there are 500 people alive. Based on those assumptions it would take 50,000 (500 times 100) units of resources to provide one unit of economic output for each person alive. Now assume that due to new technologies and/or efficient use (environmentalism) of those resources it takes only 50 units ( a reduction of 50%) of those resources to produce a unit of economic output for each person alive, but also assume that population increased to 1,500 people (population can become infinitely large, but new technologies and environmentalism can only reduce the amount of resources used to produce a unit of economic output by a limited amount). Then based on those assumptions the earth would have to produce 75,000 (1,500 times 50) units of resources so that each person could receive one unit of economic output. Those that rely on environmentalism and/or new technologies to solve the problems facing humanity are just plain wrong.

While every human being should be concerned about the environment and act in an environmentally friendly manner, that likewise is a major harmful delusion for essentially the same reasons that new technologies are a delusion. Population growth will always overpower the benefits of environmentalism—environmentalism can be only so efficient while population can grow infinitely large. In addition, environmentalism only delays the solution of the problem and when the problem must be solved there will be more people alive who cannot be permitted to reproduce. Everyone who acts in an environmentally friendly manner believes that he/she is accomplishing something, when in reality those actions are extremely harmful to humankind—they permit population to grow and humanity to use more of the earth’s irreplaceable resources.

What long term benefit would there be to humankind if the average mileage per gallon of gas went from 20 to 30, but the number of auto and trucks increased by 400 million in China, India and the rest of the third world because of an increase in their standard of living and an additional 500 million cars and trucks were added due to an increase in population of the rest of the world from the present 6.7 billion to 9.5 billion. An increase in the number of cars and trucks of that magnitude or greater is realistic and probably will happen prior to 2050, if no major catastrophe intervenes. Environmentalism, as that word is defined and used today, is an unrealistic delusion being imposed on humanity by people who have no understanding of the world and no understanding of economics. Population reduction and environmentalism must go hand in hand, with the emphasis on population reduction, for environmentalism not to be harmful to the human species.

When the price of gasoline reaches $30.00 per gallon due to the relationship of supply and demand, and the price of food substantially and dramatically goes up due to the increase in the cost of oil causing a large portion of humanity to be unable to afford food causing starvation, no one will care about the environment and will demand that drilling for oil take place with out regard for the environment. This will occur for all resources. The hell with the environment if I am starving to death or if I am going to lose my job and my family will starve to death! Let there be no mistake, there will come a time in the very near future when there will be an unavoidable choice between the environment and starvation. Can you, the reader, present a logical argument that the price of gasoline will not reach $30.00 per gallon when the human population reaches 20 billion or 30 billion or 40 billion and the number of cars and trucks reaches 5 billion or 10 billion? Population will try to reach the numbers I have set forth in this paragraph unless population growth is reduced to zero or below.

If human beings were to use their collective intelligence and reduce population by about 95% to about 300 million, then almost no matter how profligate, almost no matter how wasteful, and almost no matter how humanity treats the environment, humanity will survive for an extended period of time. Let there be no misunderstanding—environmentalism is good. However, in comparison to population and economic growth it is less than insignificant. All the time and effort spent on environmentalism should be spent on reducing population and economic growth to zero or below and should be spent on attacking and eliminating every aspect of society and religion which prevents a reduction in population growth.

Let us examine the effect of greenhouse gases and global warming on humanity. While some experts contend that humanity is not the cause of global warming or that global warming is not occurring, at least 80% of the experts believe that the production of green- house gases by humanity is the major cause of global warming. If the human population were to grow by 42%, as expected, between now and 2050, a per capita reduction of about 30% would be required to maintain the current level of total world-wide production of greenhouse gases. To put it in simple terms, just to stay even and not increase the total worldwide production of greenhouse gases a per capita reduction of about 30% would be required. With the expected increase in the standard of living of China, India and the rest of the third world, the chance of a 30% decrease in the per capita production of green- house gases is almost non-existent. China expects to add a substantial number of coal fired power plant between now and 2050, perhaps as many as one a week. Other countries will need substantially more electricity resulting in the building of more power plants which will cause an increase in the amount of greenhouse gases put into the atmosphere. The expanded population will destroy large amounts of virgin forest resulting in an increase in greenhouse gases. The number of cars will increase between now and 2050 and no matter how efficient they are additional greenhouse gases will be put into the atmosphere. To support an increase of 42% in population, international trade and airplane traffic will increase by at least 42% and that will put additional greenhouse gases into the air we all breathe. Extra energy will be needed to produce, package, transport and cool the food humanity will need to survive and that will cause an increase in greenhouse gases. More energy will be needed to heat and cool all of the additional homes, offices and commercial establishments which will be constructed. The chance of reducing the total amount of greenhouse gases produced by humanity between now and 2050 is as close to zero as can be imagined.

According to the experts, in the frozen north of the Arctic, Siberia, and Alaska there are hundreds of billions of tons of carbon which if released could be converted in methane. Also according to the experts there are substantial amounts of methane in the oceans which could be released if the temperature continues to increase. Methane is far superior to carbon dioxide in retaining heat. If hundreds of billions of tons of carbon and/or methane were to be released into the atmosphere there would be a dramatic rise in the temperature of the earth. Carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas now being produced by humanity, itself without methane will raise the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere causing substantial problems for humanity. If substantial amounts of methane were produced together with carbon dioxide there is a great chance that the temperature rise would be dramatic.

No one can predict with 100% accuracy if the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere will increase, and if it increases by how much by the years 2050 or 2100. Also no one can predict with 100% assurance that the level of the oceans will increase or by how much. However, the best predictions of the experts are that the level of the oceans will rise between three feet and 39 feet by the year 2100, due to an increase in the earth’s temperature caused by green house gases. Greenland’s ice sheets and the ice sheets of West Antarctica contain enough water, if melted, to raise the level of the oceans by those amounts. Both the ice sheets of Greenland and West Antarctica are melting today at an accelerated rate. One out of every ten inhabitants of the earth or about 630 million human beings, reside in a coastal zone that would be flooded, if the level of the oceans were to increase by the levels set forth above.. A rise to the levels set forth above is not needed to cause massive dislocations and destruction. A smaller ocean level rise coupled with more powerful storms will force massive emigration from low level areas to higher levels of land. A smaller level of ocean rise coupled with powerful storms could cause most of the important coastal cities of the world to become ghost cities---New York, London, Tokyo. Washington, New Orleans, Los Angeles, Calcutta and many others would be doomed. Many islands would become uninhabitable and almost every river delta housing hundreds of millions of people would become uninhabitable. Humanity would have extreme difficulty in coping with in excess of 600 million refugees and the destruction of many of the major cities of the world. No one knows with certainty how many people will be living in the year 2100 in the areas of the earth that could/would be flooded. However, most likely those areas will contain substantially more than the current 600 million. No comment is necessary.

Humanity cannot afford to gamble that green house gases will increase in total between today and 2050 or 2100. Humanity must take steps to insure that those gases decrease and the only way that can be done is to reduce population and to start the reduction today. Environmentalism cannot and should not be depended on to prevent an increase in green house gases.

YOU CANNOT BET THE SURVIVAL OF HUMANITY ON THE POSSIBILITY THAT HUMANITY WILL DEVELOP ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF ENERGY THAT WILL SUPPLY ALL THE NEEDS OF HUMANITY WITHOUT PRODUCING GREENHOUSE GASES.

What are the problems today which humanity faces in its fight for survival? The list is interminable--over population, environmental degradation, exhaustion of oil and other fossil fuels, global warming, rising food prices causing starvation and social unrest, the possibility of new and deadly plagues due to the destruction of forests and other natural habitats, destruction of species on a scale that could lead to the destruction of human life, lack of water to grow food due to the exhaustion of underground aquifers, over fishing leading to the elimination of fish as a source of food for humanity, dead zones in the ocean due to fertilizer run off, the possibility of new and deadly plagues due to each human being living in close proximity with other human beings, excessive irrigation leading to the destruction of soils, pollution in the atmosphere and rivers and oceans leading to disease, artificial chemicals leading to genetic damage, destruction of wetlands due to chemical pollution and the damming of rivers, invasion by non-local species leading to the destruction of local species, and , of course, the probability of war with weapons of mass destruction are the things I could think of quickly while writing this book. Some of the things listed previously overlap, but that should not detract from the problems facing humanity now in its struggle to exist. I am sure that you can think of more problems facing our species. Every one of those problems can be solved or greatly ameliorated by reducing the number of human beings existing on the earth. In fact, there is not a single problem facing humanity that cannot be solved or greatly ameliorated by a very substantial reduction in human population. To put it more directly, if humanity does not reduce its population rapidly today, one or more of those problems will lead to the destruction of humankind in the very near future. I challenge anyone to present a logical solution to any or all of the problems mentioned herein if population continues to grow beyond the 9.5 billion estimated by the US Census Bureau for 2050. Lastly, I challenge anyone to present a logical solution to any or all of those problems which will permit humanity to exist on this planet for 5,000 years if the population does not decrease below the present 6.7 billion human beings.

The words in this paragraph were taken from an article in a newspaper called “The Australian” dated January 16, 2008 by Allen Greer--- ”Another problem with the application of technology (and/or environmentalism) to overcome limited natural resources is that even when it works, it is never permanent. The inexorable increase in human numbers ultimately over-takes it, leading to another scramble to find the next technological solution as quickly as possible. Take, for example, the technological solution to the problem of hunger. No sooner had the enhanced yields achieved by traditional selective breeding in the green revolution been made available to the hungry millions than we were told that we now urgently needed genetic engineering to help feed a new generation of hungry humans who continue to number in their millions. You have to wonder if our food supply problems would not be less severe today if we had worked to stabilize or reduce human population at the same time as we made the green revolution. Another problem is that each new advance makes it difficult to go back and retrieve earlier and simpler technologies that worked well. The technological path almost invariably starts with something simple, inexpensive and diffusely owned, and progresses increasingly towards something that is complex, expensive and narrowly owned. Each step reshapes jobs, professions, industries, laws, skills, and habits, all of which entrench the new technology. For example, each step along the path towards an agriculture based on genetically modified plants and animals (all thoroughly patented) means that, increasingly, we are dependent on Agriculture International Inc for our food.” (Emphasis added)

TRIAGE ETHICS----CONVENTIONAL MORALITY OR HUMAN SURVIVAL?

Garret Hardin on Overpopulation and Carrying Capacity

The explosive population growth and the explosive growth in the use of resources demand a complete reevaluation of every aspect of society. What was moral before 1950 could very well be immoral today and what was immoral prior to 1950 could be moral today. Morality is not engraved in stone. Morality is based on the needs of society and humanity at the time it is reevaluated. Prior to 1950 the concept of creating a two group solution, the concept of dividing humanity into two groups, would have been not only immoral, but hateful and disgusting. Today such a division is necessary to prevent the immediate destruction of humanity and is, therefore, moral and just.

Medical science has by its advances changed every aspect of morality. Today medical science permits humanity to keep alive people who are in a vegetative state, people who are unable to control their bodily functions, people who have lost touch with reality, etc. Since the earth has only a limited amount of resources, humanity will have to make very hard decisions how to allocate those resources---does humanity keep alive to no one’s benefit people who cannot function or does humanity use those resources for other purposes? Humanity must understand that every resource used to keep people who do not function alive is no longer available for other uses. Humanity must understand that resources are limited—resources are not infinite and tough choices are required. The decision as to how to allocate limited resources is up to humanity. In order for population to remain stable, in order for population not to increase, there must be a one to one relationship between birth and death—a child cannot be born until and unless someone dies. If a child is born before a death happens, there will be an increase in population and continually increasing population will destroy all of humanity. That means that until an old person who is unable to control his bodily functions and who is unable to relate to his surroundings dies, a new child cannot be born. By taking the position that all old people are to be kept alive, humanity is preventing a young healthy couple from having a new healthy child, unless humankind wants population to increase leading to the destruction of all of humanity. I will leave the definition of “cannot function” to another book.

Choices are tough, but they will have to be made! Today humanity is making very tough choices relating to the usage of resources. Today somebody or some group is determining who receives transplants of hearts and other organs. Today one or more humans are playing God and determining who lives and dies. Humankind has replaced God as the giver of life and death. Today life and death is determined by location and wealth----if you needed a heart transplant and lived in Botswana your chance of obtaining it is substantially less than if you lived in the US. If a premature baby is born in a Sub-Saharan country needing modern medicine to stay alive, his chance of receiving it is substantially less than if he were born in the US. Humanity is making choices about who lives and dies today and those choices are not being made on a moral basis and will not be made on a moral basis in the future. There aren’t enough medical resources to provide the best medical care for everyone on the planet and there never will be. There never will be enough resources to keep every non-functioning person on the planet alive and choices will have to be made how to allocate resources. Triage medicine implies/requires triage ethics whether they are acknowledged or not.

The idea that certain people can reproduce and other people cannot reproduce or can reproduce with fewer children is Darwinism/survival of the fittest/natural selection at its worst. However, humanity must face the fact that if it wants to survive Darwinism will be applicable to our species when the maximum supportable population is reached and it already has been reached. Everything that has been written attacking Darwinism as applied to humanity has been written with the implicit understanding that the maximum supportable population has not been reached. Everything that has been written attacking Darwinism as applied to humanity has been written with the understanding that the earth can support people who are not productive or that everyone can be educated to be productive, that the earth has excess resources which can be used to support people who do not have the skills to function and be productive in society and that their existence will not result in wars of mass destruction. Nothing has been written and no ideas have been presented attacking Darwinism, as applied to humanity, with the understanding that the maximum supportable population has been reached. If humanity must choose between Darwinism and the destruction of our species, the choice becomes clear. Darwinism wins! The only harm caused by Darwinism, as it should be applied to humanity, is to limit the number of children a person has and in many cases that number will be zero. It does not cause any of the horrors set forth herein. If on the other hand, the failure of society to embrace Darwinism results in one or more of the horrors then Darwinism is the clear winner. Humanity has two choices once the maximum supportable population has been reached, and it already has been reached, Darwinism or death and destruction of all or almost all of humankind.

Humanity has a very difficult problem---to establish a fair, equitable, just and moral method to determine who can and who cannot be permitted to reproduce and/or how many children a person can have.

As a student of World War II for over 50 years and having read over 350 books on the subject and having suffered personal tragedies because of Hitler’s world view, I am aware of the horrible possibilities of a two group solution and Darwinism, as interpreted by Hitler and others. I am aware of the harm to humanity they can bring. I am also aware of the problem of establishing criteria to determine who can procreate/breed/reproduce and how to control the entire process. However, I see a simple choice—control population or face destruction. There are no other choices. And the only way to control population is to divide humanity into two groups.

Any argument in support of voluntary birth control, regardless of how well supported by history, facts, or numeric projections of the reality , must first and foremost overcome every single pro-natal religious, cultural, political and personal belief and lifestyle choice of everyone affected. History has shown us without fail, that the human race, en-mass, is simply not sufficiently evolved socio-intellectually to the degree needed to accept and implement the changes required that would ultimately work in humanity’s own, collective, long term benefit. Certain enlightened segments of society would agree and abide by rules and regulations necessary to achieve zero population growth, understanding that the required behavioral modifications and restrictions ultimately work to the benefit of all. However, a far larger percentage of humanity would continue behavioral deference to the historic, cultural, and religious pro-natal teachings intended to guarantee survivability of the race, culture, or religion, unencumbered by any concern for the universal collective good. Any plan or program to achieve zero population growth must first deal with the most basic and ingrained of human impulses and urges, ie…reproduction, survival of the species. Any reproduction limiting argument, irrespective of the supporting facts, could only be accepted or supported based on an intellectual understanding, belief in, and acceptance of the “negative outcome scenario” side of said argument. Acceptance of and agreement with the founding tenants of the argument in favor of the plan to reduce population growth is predicated on a populace having the intellectual acumen needed to understand the argument, coupled with a willingness to implement it. The history of humanity has repeatedly and clearly shown that human nature and behavioral impulses do not always manifest themselves in ways that engender an outcome that works in favor of an improved socioeconomic, living, or long-term survivability standard. Witness the abysmal poverty and unimaginable living conditions in places like India or the Sudan. Millions of people are daily faced with conditions that are a direct result of overpopulation. It is all around them. They are clearly suffering and dying as a result. Yet, they do nothing about it. I believe the effect of the grinding poverty, disease, and infant mortality rate in these places has the exact opposite effect. It works to encourage more reproduction. It appears that the cognitive recognition of the very conditions that are killing them strengthen the impulse to reproduce and thus, perpetuate the species. The unintended consequence of such action, however, works to continue and strengthen the very negative scenario, and thus the cycle repeats. Witness to the death rate resultant of the burden strengthens the impulse to replenish. While they cannot ignore the fact that the burden of a population in excess of what can reasonably be supported and thus thrive has been exceeded, that reality cannot intellectually negate the fear of not reproducing and continuing the blood-line. Reproduction is a human (and animal) impulse. Population control is an intellectual concept. Any attempt to implement that control for the good of humanity and the planet requires universal acceptance of the concept on an intellectual level. I firmly believe that human nature will over-ride any factually supported intellectual argument in support of any plan to control population growth, irrespective of the universally recognized negative outcome resultant of behavioral practices diametrically opposed to the core concepts of the plan to control population growth.

FAIR USE NOTICE: The White Refugee blog contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to provide information for research and educational purposes, and advance understanding for the Canadian Immigration & Refugee Board's (IRB) ‘White Refugee’ ruling. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Copyright owners who object to the fair use of their copyright news reports, may submit their objections to White Refugee Blog at: [jmc.pa.tf(at)gmail(dot)com]

Re: Former member of Radical Honesty culture

As noted at LJ v B Blanton: As of 17 October 2013, Lara Johnstone is a member of the Ecology of Peace Radical Honoursty culture. Ecology of Peace v Masonic War is Peace NWO Negotiations are updated at EoP MILED Clerk.

WR Archive...

Readers..

WR Site Stats...

Truth About the Truth Commission...

“The [Truth and Reconciliation] commission also said that there could be no healing without truth, that half-truths and denial were no basis for building the new South Africa, that reconciliation based on falsehood would not last, and that selective recollection of past violence would easily provide the mobilisation for further conflict in the future. If these are its criteria for the role of truth in promoting reconciliation, it has failed to meet them.”
-- John Kane-Berman, SA Inst. of Race Relations; In The Truth About the Truth Commission, by Anthea Jeffery

Inconvenient Truth About Apartheid....

‘The ultimate objective of Apartheid is to implement ‘separate and parallel’ Bantu states, for complete self-goverment, after a period of transition. It will be a dual commonwealth in which the Bantustans will be constituent units. Self government is to be developed on the basis of tribal traditions, the objective being full democracy, but in the form most readily assimilated by the African…’ – Clarence B. Randall, advisor to President Kennedy, Counter-Memorial filed by Gov. of the Rep. of S. Africa (Books I-IV), p.494; International Court of Justice (www.icj-cij.org)